Wednesday, May 01, 2013

Yes, the abortion-doctor trial is relevant to abortion debate

There. As the case against the Philadelphia abortion doctor accused of gruesome acts of murder in his filthy clinic goes to the jury this week, I have at last mentioned his name in my column.

Have I previously been complicit in the “media blackout” that the conservative New York Post thundered about in an April 11 editorial?

Kermit Gosnell, the face of illegal abortion in America

“Much of our press corps skews to one side on abortion,” wrote the Post. “So even though what Gosnell is charged with is closer to infanticide — an unlicensed abortionist profiting mightily by killing the newborn babies of poor, minority women — somehow it’s not news.”

Well, it wasn’t news to the New York Post, evidently. This indignant rant marked the first time the rascally tabloid had even mentioned Gosnell’s name, according to the Nexis database.

Have I been among those who “can’t handle anything critical of abortion” identified by the conservative Washington Times in an editorial that same day, decrying lack of coverage of the trial that began March 18.

Have I been one of those lefties in the press who have preferred to “shut their eyes and close their ears,” as the Times said, rather than report on the crimes of which Gosnell stands accused?

Not really. Though as Kevin Drum of Mother Jones points out, the Washington Times provided only glancing coverage of the trial itself while spilling most of its ink flogging the liberal-media conspiracy angle. And other right-wing news sources and pundits have been similarly late to the game, howling about poor coverage of a story they’d barely been covering themselves.

Truth is, until this eruption of opportunistic umbrage I’d forgotten about Gosnell, whose sickening indictment in early 2011 had been covered by CNN, NPR, Slate, Newsweek, the Nation, and had been mentioned in passing in the Tribune.

In the interest of space and out of consideration for younger or more sensitive readers I’ll keep the summary short:

Gosnell, 72, is charged with running what amounted to a squalid abattoir where he performed late-term abortions and severed the spines or otherwise killed outside the womb fetuses who showed signs of being able to survive.

He’s charged with first-degree murder in four such alleged incidents and with third-degree murder in the death of a patient who allegedly received a fatal overdose of anesthesia from Gosnell’s poorly trained staff.

I don’t mean to minimize the disturbing nature of these incidents and other stories out of Gosnell’s clinic that are not part of the remaining charges against him.

But Gosnell is not the face of abortion in America, as opponents of abortion rights are suggesting. He is the face of illegal abortion in America.

Dayle Steinberg, head of Planned Parenthood in Southeastern Pennsylvania referred to the allegations as “criminal, horrendous acts (that) should be appropriately punished.”

And while the nature and description of his crimes does, fair enough, invite reflection, conversation and debate about the legality and morality of the roughly 1 percent of abortions performed late in pregnancy, it also invites reflection, conversation and debate about what abortion will be like if the ongoing effort to harass safe, legal clinics out of existence succeeds.

The bigger story in abortion these days is the campaign by abortion-rights foes to impose targeted regulation of abortion providers — so called TRAP laws — that drive clinics out of business by forcing them to comply with unrealistic and medically unnecessary requirements.

This attempt to force abortion back underground will inevitably lead women to delay making a decision about abortion — 90 percent are now performed in the first trimester of pregnancy — and to seek out quacks and butchers operating in unsanitary conditions.

Kermit Gosnell, there I used his full name again, is a symptom of our inability to normalize abortion in a way that encourages medically sound regulatory practices and access to the sorts of safe, low-cost providers that would have driven his ilk out of business years ago.

Those who wish the media were making more of him, are, in their way, making more of him themselves.

--I do not want to start an abortion thread. That has been done many times on CoS.

As an attorney I know how to read a convoluted judicial opinion closely. Sometimes such opinions are a snow job filled with non sequiturs. Other times they make sense upon a close reading. For example – the Supreme Court opinions and dissents seeking to uphold the criminalization of sodomy contain mostly nonsensical reasoning.

In my opinion the above blog column by Zorn is a quintessential snow job or spin job seeking to mostly absolve himself and many other left leaning media outlets and to put the blame on the right leaning media and on conservatives generally. Zorn is simply being an advocate who does not have many good facts to work with.

I guess I could parse the above column line by line to show what I mean. At this point I will let others have a shot. The blog column is essentially one non sequitur after another.

I am posting this comment to assure those that feel the same unease as to what Zorn is writing. I assure them that it is not their fault. They are not stupid.

Others may read Zorn and believe he is perfectly clear. To them I say – we must civilly agree to civilly disagree.

“Much of our press corps skews to one side on abortion,” wrote the Post. “So even though what Gosnell is charged with is closer to infanticide — an unlicensed abortionist profiting mightily by killing the newborn babies of poor, minority women — somehow it’s not news.”

Reread that statement and think about it. " Somehow it's not news". You don't really need to say anything after a statement like that. "Somehow it's not news". Some editor actually said that. Our reporters are all pro choice and this isn't news.

From Michelle Goldberg: ...... What Gosnell is charged with doing was and is illegal. It’s understandable that opponents of legal abortion are seizing on the gruesome details of his case–the instinctive revulsion they cause is politically powerful. But they ( pro Life) shouldn’t be allowed to evade their responsibility for pushing women toward him.

It's the Pro life advocates that are responsible for the non enforcement of state licensing requirements for 17 years. It was the Pro life advocates that sat with Tom Ridge and voiced their concern that enforcement of rules and regulations already law would result in to many clinics being closed thus limiting abortion access.

One could go on. The only thing more revolting and stomach turning than reading the details of what this medical butcher did is the twisted reasoning of Pro Choice groups trying to evade responsibility for an agenda which called for few restrictions to promote the goal of unfettered access.

With Tom Ridge as an accomplice and a compliant regulatory agency they achieved their goal. And it resulted in the moral and medical horror committed at the Gosnell Clinic.

There has been quite a lot of coverage of so-called "TRAP laws" regulating abortion clinics, in news media that studiously ignored the Gosnell case. MSNBC spent hours of its air time on TRAP laws.

I'm sympathetic to the notion that over-regulating abortion providers could reduce access to their services.

But if that's a story, surely the deliberate, politically motivated cessation of abortion clinic inspections in Pennsylvania should be a story as well. Gosnell's clinic was allowed to operate for years because pro-choice Pennsylvania politicians put "access" first. If they inspected clinics like Gosnell's, they might have found problems and had to shut them down. So they stopped inspecting.

People died because pro-choice politicians put "access" to abortion before women's safety.

Some of the outrage from these defenders of Women's Right to Choose and access to safe healthcare appears to have come a little late in the game.

......"Dayle Steinberg, head of Planned Parenthood in Southeastern Pennsylvania referred to the allegations as “criminal, horrendous acts (that) should be appropriately punished.” From the Philadelphia Inquirer story: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, who were told about the Gosnell lack of basic sanitation, and yet, no one did anything about it.

"..... that drive clinics out of business by forcing them to comply with unrealistic and medically unnecessary requirements. Well we can't blame TRAP for this can we? No inspections for 17 years to enforce even the most basic health care laws.

[Kermit Gosnell, there I used his full name again, is a symptom of our inability to normalize abortion in a way that encourages medically sound regulatory practices and access to the sorts of safe, low-cost providers that would have driven his ilk out of business years ago.]

The truth is that Gosnell was operating out in the open. He was not hiding from the State regulators. I see nothing that the pro-life people did to discourage “medically sound regulatory practices” in this case. Thus I have no idea what Zorn is talking about in the above quoted paragraph.

ZORN REPLY -- Expressing your failure to understand the legal and cultural context isn't "parsing" Jerry. What do you think "parsing" is, anyway?
The entire oversight structure on abortion is so infected by politics and fear that there isn't a medically neutral regulatory process that treats abortion providers the same as similar outpatient facilities. Try reading up on the TRAP laws before simply expressing your confusion.

"The bigger story in abortion these days is the campaign by abortion-rights foes to impose targeted regulation of abortion providers — so called TRAP laws — that drive clinics out of business by forcing them to comply with unrealistic and medically unnecessary requirements.

"This attempt to force abortion back underground will inevitably lead women to delay making a decision about abortion — 90 percent are now performed in the first trimester of pregnancy — and to seek out quacks and butchers operating in unsanitary conditions."

This is the most important point of your column. I don't think any pro-life supporter would like to see a return to this kind of butchery. At least, I hope so.

I've been watching "Call the Midwife" on PBS, which shows the state of women bearing children many decades ago in England. Last Sunday's episode showed a woman desperate not to bear another child in poverty, after eight children living in a two room slum filled with rats. With the support of her husband, she almost died from an illegal abortion. Do we really want to go back to this?

@WendyC: To answer your question No. For those who don't know "Call of the Midwife" is a memoir about the early years of recovery in Post WW ll Britain. My wife and daughters got me me watch it last year. It is excellent, this is its second year.

"The bigger story in abortion these days is the campaign by abortion-rights foes to impose targeted regulation of abortion providers — so called TRAP laws — that drive clinics out of business by forcing them to comply with unrealistic and medically unnecessary requirements." - I'm glad you realize that increased regulation results in lower economic activity. Remember that for other topics as well.

Wendy,

"Last Sunday's episode showed a woman desperate not to bear another child in poverty, after eight children living in a two room slum filled with rats. With the support of her husband, she almost died from an illegal abortion. Do we really want to go back to this?" Perhaps we want to trying educating the other of 8 on how children are created. Perhaps hubby can have the ol' snip-snip.

ZORN REPLY -- I concede the regulatory point only insofar as we're talking about unrealistic, unnecessary regulations. To some degree, regulation helps boost economic activity by promoting consumer confidence. Imagine how the meat or airline industries would be doing if the public had no confidence in regulatory oversight.

In my above post I pointed to one paragraph of Zorn’s Blog Column which I believe is a super-duper non sequitur. What Zorn says simply does not follow logically. I explained why I thought so. Zorn replied. In my opinion Zorn’s Reply is another nonresponsive non sequitur.

It appears that Zorn and I will simply have to civilly agree to civilly disagree.

Zorn is Chicago’s leading liberal/progressive pundit. Some might attribute their inability to make sense of what Zorn is saying to their relative lack of knowledge in these matters. I am posting to tell readers that I believe it is Zorn’s fault – not theirs.

Other readers my feel that Zorn is perfectly clear and that I am a dunderhead. I am OK with that.

I am merely asking readers to trust their own judgment and to decide for themselves.

Comsumer comfidence is a valid point. Wouldn't these businesses, such as the airlines and meat industries, self correct once they started losing market share due to planes crashing and people dying. They have a bottom line interest in getting it right. I'm not saying they s/b unregulated, just need to fine the balance.

I do not want to participate in name calling. There are many sensible arguments with which I disagree. But here Zorn is simply not making sense. He is saying things not connect by logic. It is gobbally-gook. That is a harsh assessment. Thus let me explain in detail.

From the Grand Jury Report:

[THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH NEGLECTED ITS DUTY TO
ENSURE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF PATIENTS IN PENNSYLVANIA’S
ABORTION CLINICS.]

[We discovered that Pennsylvania’s Department of Health has deliberately chosen not to enforce laws that should afford patients at abortion clinics the same safeguards and assurances of quality health care as patients of other medical service providers. Even nail salons in Pennsylvania are monitored more closely for client safety.]

[Indeed, the department has shown an utter disregard both for the safety of women who seek treatment at abortion clinics and for the health of fetuses after they have become viable. State health officials have also shown a disregard for the laws the department is supposed to enforce. Most appalling of all, the Department of Health’s neglect of abortion patients’ safety and of Pennsylvania laws is clearly not inadvertent: Itis by design]

[State health officials knew that Gosnell and his clinic were offering unacceptable
medical care to women and girls, yet DOH failed to take any action to stop the atrocities documented by this Grand Jury.]

[The state Department of Health failed to investigate Gosnell’s clinic even in
response to complaints.]

[According to DOH witnesses, sometime after 1993, DOH instituted a policy of
inspecting abortion clinics only when there was a complaint. In fact, as this Grand Jury’s investigation makes clear, the department did not even do that.]

In my above post I focused on one paragraph of the Zorn column where Zorn said:

[Kermit Gosnell, there I used his full name again, is a symptom of our inability to normalize abortion in a way that encourages medically sound regulatory practices and access to the sorts of safe, low-cost providers that would have driven his ilk out of business years ago.]

In response thereto I posted:

[The truth is that Gosnell was operating out in the open. He was not hiding from the State regulators. I see nothing that the pro-life people did to discourage “medically sound regulatory practices” in this case. Thus I have no idea what Zorn is talking about in the above quoted paragraph.]

Then we have the Zorn Reply:

[ZORN REPLY -- Expressing your failure to understand the legal and cultural context isn't "parsing" Jerry. What do you think "parsing" is, anyway?The entire oversight structure on abortion is so infected by politics and fear that there isn't a medically neutral regulatory process that treats abortion providers the same as similar outpatient facilities. Try reading up on the TRAP laws before simply expressing your confusion.]

As best I can understand Zorn’s remarks -- I infer he is blaming the pro-life people for the failure of the Pennsylvania Department of Health for its dereliction of duty. That is nonsensical and defies logic in light of the Grand Jury Report.

While Eric may have some points about the coverage of the actual arrest, I must say that his post has a defensive tone to it. Making the pro life crowd and the "right wingers" the villains in this case sounds typical of liberals, but I expected more from Eric. Of course nothing changes the fact that the real news networks dropped the ball on this and did not cover the trial.

By the way, I'm pro choice and will still be after the trial. Not everyone complaining about the coverage wants to go back to the days of back alley abortions.

It is SO amusing to read people claiming to be attorneys -- with zero experience being judges at any level -- who somehow feel that qualifies them to discern that the Supreme Court of the United States Justices are indulging in nonsensical reasoning. (Recall that Birther nutjob Orly Taitz is an attorney, but got it via correspondence courses.)

Is it mere jealousy? Dunning-Kruger? Silly posturing? Egomania run amuck?

I do not notice it in any other profession -- you don't tend to see someone who barely passed medical school as a general practitioner boldly proclaiming that they know more than the American Medical Association. You don't see a high school music teacher boldly proclaiming that they know more than the CSO conductor. You just don't -- or if you do, they are laughed at.

What is it about some attorneys that gives them the arrogance to proclaim their interpretation as vastly superior to those of world recognized experts in their field? You would think that having to deal with "evidence" would insulate them against such patently and obviously false conclusions.

Even if the indictments were covered, that doesn't negate the fact that the trial itself (and what's coming out of there is just sickening) seems to have been barely mentioned. And I recall a count froma day or two ago indicating that ABC, which is all a-twitter over the Michael Jackson trial, has devoted little, if any, time to it. This is a major network, for Pete's sake!

Hi Xu! Apparently you're no fan of sports. People question coaches and top league officials all the time, and sometimes the people are right.

You might also want to familiarize yourself with the story of the obscure doctor who discovered a cure for ulcers. He started his work while he was still in training. The "world recognized experts" laughed at him.

Thank you for disagreeing with me in a civil manner. I respect you for that.

I believe the one example I have chosen is the lynch-pin of Zorn's thinking on the subject matter of his post.

As you know Aristotle and other ancients have catalogued the "errors of logic.''
They have fancy Latin names. I used "non sequitur" as the error in logic that Zorn is committing. Perhaps there is one more representative of Zorn's error. I simply did not want to be overly pedantic.In any regard, Zorn is in serious need of one or more "minor premises" to make his case.

I feel Mr. Zorn makes some excellent points. Frankly, Gosnell was allowed to prey on women and children because both private observers and state regulators, fearful of getting involved in the abortion debate, chose to look the other way. I believe the Gosnell episode is a perfect argument for why the abortion issue should be taken out of the legal arena and put back into the political arena where all these issues are put out in the open and politicians have to take a stand and face the issue instead of hiding behind Roe v Wade.

I also note that Eric says that only "roughly 1 percent of abortions" take place late in pregnancy, implying that in the grand scheme of things this is no big deal. Funny, when Todd Aiken made his remarks about pregnancy resulting from rape, which also happens very infrequently, the media exploded notwithstanding the fact it does not happen often. It became the basis for their argument that the GOP was at war with women.

The real war on women is being waged by Dr. Gosnell and others like hi.

"It is SO amusing to read people claiming to be attorneys -- with zero experience being judges at any level -- who somehow feel that qualifies them to discern that the Supreme Court of the United States Justices are indulging in nonsensical reasoning."

It's nonsensical to think that you if you are not a trained judge, you cannot make a reasoned interpretation of the law that is at odds with another reasoned interpretation, and make a valid argument for it. The law is not a science. It doesn't hold one truth that can be reached with the proper degree of education. Interpretation of the law has as much to do about one's view of society, economics and history as one's mastery of law, especially when the Constitution is involved. For instance, the language in the Second Amendment is so obtuse that it will be probably argued over forever. That doesn't mean there are not learned people who feel certain over its true meaning and the Founders' actual intent. This is why we have Supreme Court cases, which often do come down to nine very experienced judges disagreeing, vehemently, five to four. Scalia and Ginsburg are both respected for their judicial intellect yet interpret the law in vastly different ways. So, Xuuths, which of these "experts" should we believe? On the other hand, scientists don't debate over who is right about how DNA works or what keeps an airplane in the sky. There is no magic power that law school or time on the bench gives to have the final word on the Constitution.

Thank you, quotidian, for not commenting on what I actually commented on -- that is, the claim of superiority. The ability to discern that someone else is engaging in "nonsensical reasoning" -- somewhat different from "interpreting the law in vastly different ways" don't you think? (I may disagree with Scalia, but I don't suggest he has written a "snow job filled with non sequiturs", unlike some.)

JerryB, you once again demonstrate that you should refrain from making any kind of evaluation of someone else being "nonsensical" when you clearly have comprehension difficulties.

[Staloksi, the woman most directly responsible for the department’s oversight of
abortion facilities…] (out of sequence)

[Staloski blamed the decision to abandon supposedly annual inspections of
abortion clinics on DOH lawyers, who, she said, changed their legal opinions and advice to suit the policy preferences of different governors. Under Governor Robert Casey, she said, the department inspected abortion facilities annually. Yet, when Governor TomRidge came in, the attorneys interpreted the same regulations that had permitted annual inspections for years to no longer authorize those inspections. Then, only complaint driven inspections supposedly were authorized. Staloski said that DOH’s policy duringGovernor Ridge’s administration was motivated by a desire not to be “putting a barrier up
to women” seeking abortions.]

[Brody confirmed some of what Staloski told the Grand Jury. He described a
meeting of high-level government officials in 1999 at which a decision was made not to accept a recommendation to reinstitute regular inspections of abortion clinics. The reasoning, as Brody recalled, was: “there was a concern that if they did routine inspections, that they may find a lot of these facilities didn’t meet [the standards for getting patients out by stretcher or wheelchair in an emergency], and then there would be less abortion facilities, less access to women to have an abortion.”]

[Brody testified that he did not consider the “access issue” a legal one. The
Abortion Control Act, he told the Grand Jurors, charges DOH with protecting the health and safety of women having abortions and premature infants aborted alive. To carry out this responsibility, he said, DOH should regularly inspect the facilities.]

[Bureau Director Staloski, in fact, readily acknowledged many deficiencies in
DOH’s, and her own, oversight of abortion facilities. But her dismissive demeanor
indicated to us that she did not really understand – or care about – the devastating impact that the department’s neglect had had on the women whom Gosnell treated in his filthy, dangerous clinic.]

[Staloski excused the DOH practices that enabled Gosnell to operate in the manner that killed Ms. Shaw, Mrs. Mongar, and untold numbers of babies. She simply said the abortion regulations – written by DOH – do not require DOH to inspect abortion clinics. When DOH inspectors finally entered Gosnell’s clinic in February 2010, not at Staloski’s direction but at the urging of law enforcement, Staloski seemed more annoyed than appalled or embarrassed. On the morning after the raid, she received a copy of an email that Boyne wrote to Brody the night of the raid. Boyne reported to the department’s senior counsel that, at 12:45 a.m., she had told the Department of Health staff members at
the clinic to “wrap it up and secure lodging in the interest of their safety.” Boyne toldBrody that the “staff walked into a very difficult setup.” She complained that a
representative of the District Attorney’s Office was “badgering” DOH staff to shut downthe facility immediately. Boyne was seeking Brody’s legal guidance.
Staloski’s response to Boyne’s email was: “I’d say we were used.” Boyne’s reply:
“Bingo.”]

[Staloksi, the woman most directly responsible for the department’s oversight of
abortion facilities, told the Grand Jury: “I haven’t been in any facilities in probably – in an abortion facility in many, many years.” The citizens of Pennsylvania deserve far better from those charged with protecting public health and safety.]

[It was clear to us after hearing these witnesses testify that the decisions not to
inspect abortion clinics or to license them as ASFs were not based on any serious interpretation of statutes or legal research. These lawyers were simply twisting and reinterpreting the law to explain policy decisions that changed with administrations, even though the laws did not. Dutton admitted in her testimony that the decision not to inspectwas a policy decision, not one grounded in the law:]

[Dutton’s failure to recognize and treat abortion clinics as ASFs, and her silence as DOHshirked its duty to protect women and infants at abortion clinics, reflect a blatant refusal to enforce the law.]

[The DOH attorneys offered multiple explanations to attempt to justify why the
department does not license abortion clinics in the same manner as any other ASF. Noneof their explanations comports with the law or with common sense.]

[Two of their “justifications” are barely worth comment. One lawyer told us that
there is always “push-back” from doctors who do not want to be licensed as ASFs. Not only is this argument irrelevant to any legal analysis, it is unpersuasive. We learned that there are fewer than 30 abortion providers in the entire state. These doctors should not be able to exert that much push-back. Moreover, the legitimate abortion providers who testified before the Grand Jury told us that they already comply with standards as demanding as those for ASFs. Abortion rights advocates told us the same thing – thatlicensing abortion clinics as ASFs would not be burdensome because clinics that are members of NAF, or associated with Planned Parenthood, already comply with the
highest standards of care.]

[A second reason proffered by DOH attorneys for not licensing abortion clinics –
that abortion is “controversial” – is just insulting. Abortion is a legal medical procedure. Any controversy surrounding the issue should not affect how the law is enforced orwhether the Department of Health protects the safety of women seeking health care.]

"Kermit Gosnell, there I used his full name again, is a symptom of our inability to normalize abortion in a way that encourages medically sound regulatory practices and access to the sorts of safe, low-cost providers that would have driven his ilk out of business years ago."

This will never happen as the issue is ground zero in the culture wars and neither side is going to give up the fight.

What is the path forward? Technology will lead the way. It will provide cheaper, more effective birth control, which our legislators should allow to be purchased over-the-counter. It will also lead to increased proof that what is being aborted is human, which will result in fewer abortions even in states in which it remains legal (and, yes, this is a prediction that Roe is going down - for years, it's been only one Justice's vote away from being overturned, in my opinion). Clinics will close and those who have abortions, legally or illegally, will use technology whether it's drugs or something else that can safely do the job at home.

Technology is going to reduce the number of social issues that we fight about. It's already doing that with gambling (it's easy to gamble on-line), smoking (e-cigarettes), and will do so in the future with gun control (anyone with access to a 3-D printer can get what they need), abortion, and environmental issues, and other things I'm not thinking of as well.

No one can exactly predict the when and how, but one thing is for sure - neither side is going to be completely happy about it.

What am I missing? I didn't see any evidence in the excerpt that that woman's professional negligence had anything to do with her personal beliefs about abortion. I still don't know if she was pro-choice or pro-life based on those snippets.

I claim an "intentional violation dispensation" for my long grand jury quotes.

Facts were needed.

I will not abuse this dispensation in the future.

ZORN REPLY -- Byrne's column, to which I linked, contained lengthy excerpts. I stipulate to them and reassert that they have nothing whatsoever to do with the question of legal abortion or 90 percent of the abortions sought or obtained in this country. THese are crimes that are alleged.

"Conservative media, led by Fox News, are alleging that their "liberal" mainstream counterparts have purposefully ignored the horrific case of Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia doctor charged with eight counts of murder for grisly procedures committed under the guise of women's reproductive health. But when news of Gosnell's arrest and the enormity of his alleged crimes first broke in January 2011, Fox News covered the story the least of the three cable networks.

In recent days, Fox has been working to ascribe nefarious motives to the allegation that mainstream outlets have supposedly ignored Gosnell. "The fact that it is not covered I think is easily explained," said Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer on the April 11 edition of Special Report. "It puts the pro-abortion forces in a very bad light."

Gosnell was arrested on January 19, 2011, and the details of the allegations against him were made public that same day. A search* of Media Matters' transcript and video archive (along with Nexis transcripts) from January 19 to January 31, 2011, revealed that among the three major cable news networks, Gosnell's arrest was covered the most by CNN (33 minutes, 24 seconds of coverage), followed by MSNBC (9 minutes, 16 seconds), followed by Fox News (6 minutes, 31 seconds)."

The lingering question is, why? Why did a Philadelphia trial that conservatives now insist deserves ongoing, front-page national press coverage manage to interest so few right-leaning journalists for so long? Why did the conservative press get caught in the embarrassing position where members complained about a Gosnell "media blackout" when conservative outlets had apparently participated in the blackout? (Note that as of today, Rupert Murdoch's New York Post and still have not covered the trial as a news story and Murdoch's Wall Street Journal has published just a single report.)

I think the simple answer is that the Gosnell story did not involve President Obama, therefore it didn't sustain the attention of the far-right press, which seems fully committed to producing content that only revolves around attacking the president or ginning up phony outrage about his every action.

All this bantering about forms of arguments...we have lost focus of what is important! Was the Gosnell trial ignored due to liberal bias of the media? Are there many others operating (and I use that term loosely) as Gosnell did? Have we gone so far overboard in our PC reluctance to question any aspect of abortion providers, that we have somehow enabled these obscene clinics to continue to exist without any fear of oversight?

And oh, by the way, when Zorn uses these words 'outside the womb fetuses', I had to pause...isn't 'it' only a FETUS when it is inside the womb? Doesn't the description change to BABY when it is outside the womb? When a woman delivers a stillborn, is it described as a fetus or a child?

-- Yeah, Eric, Earth Mom makes a good point: Just what the hell are "outside the womb fetuses"?

Was this sloppy writing? Or are you one of those guys who believes that a baby* who survives an abortion can be killed? Or is it something else?

*ba·by/ˈbeɪbi/ Show Spelled [bey-bee] Show IPA noun, plural ba·bies, adjective, verb, ba·bied, ba·by·ing.
noun
1. an infant or very young child.
2. a newborn or very young animal.
3. the youngest member of a family, group, etc.
4. an immature or childish person.
5. a human fetus.

ZORN REPLY -- "outside the womb" was not an adjectival phrase but a locational phrase to specify where he killed the Being That It Is Impossible To Name Without Angering One Side or the Other in the Abortion Debate.
I know you all would prefer to refer to the smallest embryo as a "baby," but if you or Earth Mom want to argue that the inside-the-womb / outside-the-womb distinction is important terminologically speaking, be my guest.
I won't argue that it was the clearest sentence I've ever written.

ZORN REPLY -- The entire oversight structure on abortion is so infected by politics and fear that there isn't a medically neutral regulatory process that treats abortion providers the same as similar outpatient facilities. Try reading up on the TRAP laws before simply expressing your confusion.

MCN Response: In the grand jury's view, at least, the politics in PA seem to have been to close a blind eye to the regulation of abortion clinics, so I guess your first sentence is correct to the extent that abortion clinics were subject to a LOWER degree of regulations than other outpatient clincis.

And what does that have to do with so-called TRAP laws (nice acronym, that)? ANS: Nothing.

JerryB's right: Your column IS filled with non sequiturs and red herrings. You let your emotion get the best of you on this one.

BTW: Lawyers are trained to understand what case law says and means and to apply it. Non-lawyers aren't. You're aware of that fact, aren't you, JerryB?

BTW2: The Court's opinion in Roe is one long non sequitur. The dissents prove it.

ZORN REPLY -- You and JerryB seem to type away under the delightful misapprehension that any argument with which you disagree can we waved off with an airy "non-sequitur!" I don't know if JerryB knows Latin, but what's your excuse?
The argument is pretty simple and tracks perfectly -- when you try to outlaw or regulate out of existence safe, clean, well-staffed abortion clinics, you're going to get more, not less monsters like Gosnell out there operating in the shadows.
You may disagree with that argument or think it's irrelevant, but you can't say it's a "non-sequitur" unless you don't know what "non-sequitur" means or unless you do and you think that readers who don't will be be impressed.
I haven't read a whole lot about the political/regulatory environment in Pennsylvania that led to this place operating outside of the law for so long, but I'm guessing it's deeply entwined with the fears that abortion-rights advocates have that their foes are intent on regulating and inspecting them out of business...hence the allusion to TRAP laws, which I encourage you to read up on.
Conservatives certainly ought to relate to such fear, as it's pretty plainly the animating force behind opposition to even minor new gun-control laws.

During the trial, the court and medical examiner refer to "aborted fetuses". I see no reason to attack Zorn for doing the same. And don't even start with me. This man is a monster. You don't have to be exclusively pro-choice or pro-life to agree these horrendous crimes should have never been allowed to take place.

"Medical Examiner Sam Gulino told jurors Monday he had to examine the remains of 47 aborted fetuses, some of which were frozen, as part of the investigation into the charges against Dr. Kermit Gosnell."

Of course he is. So was the "H" person of German history. But societies are filled with monsters -- they are usually kept in prisons and insane asylums.

With is vile is when these monsters do their thing out in the open and the authorities do nothing to stop them. The officials and regulators in Pennsylvania did nothing. The Grand Jury found that this willful turning a blind eye was contrary to their legal obligations. The Grand Jury found they were motivated by their desire to place no obstacles to abortions. That can only be labeled a pro-choice desire.

To blame only the monster is an attempt to absolve everyone else. The German people of the 1930's are not absolved. Neither are the pro-choice Pennsylvanian officials and regulators in charge.

Zorn says "..where he killed the Being That It Is Impossible To Name Without Angering One Side or the Other in the Abortion Debate.
I know you all would prefer to refer to the smallest embryo as a "baby," but if you or Earth Mom want to argue that the inside-the-womb / outside-the-womb distinction is important terminologically speaking, be my guest."

I cannot believe that you even wrote that. Somehow it seems to belittle the very importance of the question: a 'being' that is 'outside' the womb is obviously a baby. We have re-defined many other terms in our country, but this one still stands for most people.

[ZORN REPLY -- Byrne's column, to which I linked, contained lengthy excerpts. I stipulate to them and reassert that they have nothing whatsoever to do with the question of legal abortion or 90 percent of the abortions sought or obtained in this country. THese are crimes that are alleged.]

But these Grand Jury findings do have a lot to do with pro-choice state regulators who willfully turned a blind eye to their legal duties so as not to hinder abortions.

And since abortion was legal in Pennsylvania THEY DO HAVE A LOT TO DO WITH LEGAL ABORTION.

In a way, Gosnell deserves thanks for exposing the hypocrisy involved in the abortion topic. Ending the life of a 'being' that is 'outside' a body seems to upset people. But ending the life of a 'being' that happens to be 'inside' a body is allowed. Why? What is the difference? I have struggled within myself to reach my own belief on this matter. I am well aware that abortion will not go back into the dark closet of coat hangers & back alleys. I had hoped that the so-called morning-after pill might put an end to the abortion business. I tried to rationalize that it is impossible for me to pass any judgement since I had never been in any position whereby I would want an abortion. But somehow I cannot accept that it should be permissible to mutilate unto death, an embryo that is capable of life outside the womb. Society's approval of this sends far reaching ripples throughout the entire fabric of any morality we have left.

JerryB, everyone on this thread except YOU has laughed at your frequent inability to read other posts with comprehension. That is why we all find you so funny/sad.

Earth Mom, a zygote outside the womb is NOT "obviously a baby." Nor is a fertilized egg cell. Nor is a blastocyst. Only a late development fetus -- viable -- outside the womb would be considered a baby. Typically, anything non-birth and non-surgical outside the womb is usually a miscarriage.

--MCN, you've been chided before -- by me -- for using the faulty dictionary.com (what a crappy reference) rather than a legitimate dictionary, which does not support your statement. I've provided Merriam-Websters and other legitimate references which demonstrate the error. You're rehashing this old and failed argument. It appears to make YOU feel good about your incorrect use of the word, but it does not add one whit of legitimacy.

Are you trying to claim that a fertilized egg cell taken out of a woman's body is a baby? Really? Are you claiming a blastocyst taken out of a woman's body is a baby? Really? Do you understand how silly that makes your stance. Stosh indeed.

Sheesh!

ZORN REPLY -- Dictionary.com usually includes definitions culled from Random House Dictionary and Collins English Dictionary as well as the Online Etymology Dictionary -- it's a pretty good place to start, and you don't often see conflicts with Merriam Webster.

Plus my other references. No limits on viability to be see, big hoss. Wrong again.

What we have usefully established is that the English language interchangeably uses "fetus" and "baby" for an unborn human being without restriction. Stosh's brother has contested that in the past, but we all now see that argument is a loser. He is now reduced to insistence, which is all he ever had all along.

JerryB, you'll find that request of mine rather difficult, since MCN was in error in his original statement you cut-n-pasted. One does not have to be an attorney to "understand what case law says and means and to apply it."

Perhaps MCN is ignorant about paralegals, legal secretaries, law clerks, and even some lobbyists (and others who are merely curious) -- who are more than capable of doing it, and none of which are attorneys. Again, the arrogance coming through, and again being inaccurate.

No, MCN, what we have usefully established is that you like to search for substandard dictionaries that might support your point (I've never met someone who, when asked for an authoritative dictionary, replied with "Collins" -- and I am pretty sure neither have you, if you were honest), rather than the authoritative ones I've provided links to which refute it.

What's that you're drinking? Sour grapes? (You seem incapable of writing for very long without falling into namecalling -- a terrible weakness on your part, demonstrating that you know you are in error, and are blustering in an attempt to silence someone pointing out your errors. So fragile.)

[ZORN REPLY -- You and JerryB seem to type away under the delightful misapprehension that any argument with which you disagree can we waved off with an airy "non-sequitur!" I don't know if JerryB knows Latin, but what's your excuse? The argument is pretty simple and tracks perfectly -- when you try to outlaw or regulate out of existence safe, clean, well-staffed abortion clinics, you're going to get more, not less monsters like Gosnell out there operating in the shadows. You may disagree with that argument or think it's irrelevant, but you can't say it's a "non-sequitur" unless you don't know what "non-sequitur" means or unless you do and you think that readers who don't will be be impressed. I haven't read a whole lot about the political/regulatory environment in Pennsylvania that led to this place operating outside of the law for so long, but I'm guessing it's deeply entwined with the fears that abortion-rights advocates have that their foes are intent on regulating and inspecting them out of business...hence the allusion to TRAP laws, which I encourage you to read up on. Conservatives certainly ought to relate to such fear, as it's pretty plainly the animating force behind opposition to even minor new gun-control laws.]

THIS IS ANOTHER GIANT NON SEQUITUR. PLEASE ALLOW ME TO EXPLAIN.

First to define non sequitur by Webster: (1) an inference that does not follow from the premises. (2) a statement that does not follow logically from anything previously said.

Zorn’s blog column initiating this thread was solely devoted to Gosnell. It carried a big color picture of Gosnell.

In the blog column-- also appearing in the print edition of the Chicago Tribune --Zorn stated:

[Kermit Gosnell, there I used his full name again, is a symptom of our inability to normalize abortion in a way that encourages medically sound regulatory practices and access to the sorts of safe, low-cost providers that would have driven his ilk out of business years ago.]

I STRONGLY DISAGREED. I posted:

[THE TRUTH IS THAT GOSNELL WAS OPERATING OUT IN THE OPEN. HE WAS NOT HIDING FROM THE STATE REGULATORS. I SEE NOTHING THAT THE PRO-LIFE PEOPLE DID TO DISCOURAGE “MEDICALLY SOUND REGULATORY PRACTICES” IN THIS CASE. THUS I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ZORN IS TALKING ABOUT IN THE ABOVE QUOTED PARAGRAPH.](Emphasis now added)

I supported my disagreement with Zorn with extensive quotes from the Grand Jury Report. See my posts of 8:48 AM and 11:03 AM.

I concluded from the Grand Jury Report that the motivation of the state regulators was to put no obstacles in the way of women seeking abortions. It also shows that this motivation ran contrary to the law. Thus it sure seems like a personal pro-choice motivation to me.

Later I posted “But these Grand Jury findings do have a lot to do with pro-choice state regulators who willfully turned a blind eye to their legal duties so as not to hinder abortions.”

THUS Zorn’s statement published in the print edition of the Chicago Tribune: to wit,

[Kermit Gosnell, there I used his full name again, is a symptom of our inability to normalize abortion in a way that encourages medically sound regulatory practices and access to the sorts of safe, low-cost providers that would have driven his ilk out of business years ago.]

does not logically follow from and is not supported by anything appearing in the Grand Jury Report. Just the opposite appears to be true.

"Excerpts from the Grand Jury Report show the motivation was to put no obstacles in the way of women seeking abortions. It also shows that this motivation ran contrary to the law...Thus it sure seems like a personal pro-choice motivation to me."

Or a CYA excuse to cover your neglect in carrying out the law, which is inexcusable. Just sayin'...

@EZ: JerryB's post pretty much sums up my response to your rjeply to me. As you know, non sequitur has at least two meanings, its one in logic and its one in common parlance.

The last two paragraphs of his post are right on point. Moreover, I don't think there's much if any truth in what you said. The fact is that Gosnell was in this business to make money. No symptom there.

Finally, I don't think abortion can be normalized anymore than slaveholding can be.

I'll look up TRAP laws. I suggest you watch "Silent Scream" sometime.

ZORN REPLY -- nice try. Either way you define non sequitur you're wrong, as is JerryB, and if you do read up on TRAP you'll see how the poisoned regulatory arena came into play here. No one trusts your side because you don't for a second want safer abortion clinics. You want to regulate them out of existence.

[Or a CYA excuse to cover your neglect in carrying out the law, which is inexcusable. Just sayin'...]

That is nonsense in light of the Grand Jury Report which stated in part:

[We discovered that Pennsylvania’s Department of Health has deliberately chosen not to enforce laws that should afford patients at abortion clinics the same safeguards and assurances of quality health care as patients of other medical service providers. Even nail salons in Pennsylvania are monitored more closely for client safety.]

Why do you so cling to a cognitive narrative that is so contrary to the facts?

[ZORN REPLY -- nice try. Either way you define non sequitur you're wrong, as is JerryB, and if you do read up on TRAP you'll see how the poisoned regulatory arena came into play here. No one trusts your side because you don't for a second want safer abortion clinics. You want to regulate them out of existence.]

This is a Gosnell thread. The initial column was carefully written by Zorn since it also appeared in the print edition of the Chicago Tribune. Zorn even posted a color picture of Gosnell as part of the column.

As I have shown above -- Zorn attempted to use the Gosnell/Pennsylvanian regulatory debacle to support some thesis that he is advocating. He did so knowing very little of the actual specifics of the Gosnell debacle. He was forced to admit this. Zorn eventually posted:

[…I haven't read a whole lot about the political/regulatory environment in Pennsylvania that led to this place operating outside of the law for so long, but I'm guessing it's deeply entwined with the fears that abortion-rights advocates have that their foes are intent on regulating and inspecting them out of business...hence the allusion to TRAP laws, which I encourage you to read up on. Conservatives certainly ought to relate to such fear, as it's pretty plainly the animating force behind opposition to even minor new gun-control laws.]

Well Zorn not knowing the facts simply GUESSED wrong. Thus not only does he have egg on his face – he has a complete omelet. What he is now attempting to do is to change the subject.

All of the pedantic repartee aside (re: definition of non sequitur/knowledge of Latin/etc), I stand by what I originally posted:
A 'being' that is 'outside' the womb is obviously a baby.

To Xuuths, I used the word 'being' to refer to something existing, not to refer to a zygote. I also believe you err when you post "Only a late development fetus -- viable -- outside the womb would be considered a baby"; quite a few preemies would not qualify as being in a stage of 'late development' and yet are saved through medical care.

There is no bait here. Gosnell did not operate in the shadows, and EZ's argument collapses on that fact.

What is even more repugnant is that "reputable" abortion clinics referred patients to Gosnell. That's operating in the shadows?

EZ, you're shooting blanks here. But at least you're not arguing the merits of dictionaries that do or don't meet you're ideological predisposition.

I also read up on TRAP, going to the usual propaganda ridden sources. I'm unimpressed. How are you liking Silent Scream?

ZORN REPLY -- Watched it years ago. Unlike you, I don't pretend that abortion is a simple, easy issue in which it's obvious that society should compel a raped 12-year-old girl to bear the child of her rapist and frozen embryos are sacred. I believe that until viability the choice is not mine or yours or society's but the choice of the woman who is pregnant, and whether that's gruesome or unpleasant to consider is beside the point.

Over the last five or so years the abortion question has been debated on numerous threads. It is probably the leading topic on CoS. Thus the many regulars on this thread do not want to rehash the same stuff.

But you are new and there might also be other new people. Thus -- by all means -- say what you want to say.

There is a Google feature to the right. Try to Google "1000 vs 1" for a very interesting abortion thread. "Abortion triage" may also get the same thread.

@EZ: I haven't read a whole lot about the political/regulatory environment in Pennsylvania that led to this place operating outside of the law for so long, but I'm guessing it's deeply entwined with the fears that abortion-rights advocates have that their foes are intent on regulating and inspecting them out of business

MCN Reply: Why don't you read up on it? You're a reporter.. You've made a supposition that may or may not be accurate. What's the truth?

What if it turns out that the PA regulators weren't even thinking about this legislation when they turned a blind eye to this killer? (TRAP, I love that. I gotta think up something that goes with KILL,) That won't look so good.

You initially said "if you do read up on TRAP you'll see how the poisoned regulatory arena came into play here."

You later said: " I haven't read a whole lot about the political/regulatory environment in Pennsylvania that led to this place operating outside of the law for so long, but I'm guessing ...' In other words, you made a factual assertion in quote 1 but then backtracked in quote 2.

You've been impeached.

ZORN REPLY -- "in Pennsylvania" are the key words...my knowledge of TRAP laws is based on numerous national news stories that have created an overall environment in which abortion providers and the politicians who protect a woman's right to choose are justifiably wary of the efforts of regulators...but since I haven't studied the exact lay of the land "in Pennsylvania" I should have inserted "most likely" in between "arena" and "came."
Do you really doubt this? Do you dispute the idea that your side is trying really hard wherever it can to impose nitpicky regulations and requirements on abortion providers for no other reason than to try to harass them out of operation? And that this has created an oppositional relationship regarding regulation between the sides that has nothing to do with assuring medical safety?
If you do, impeach yourself.

Since I have resumed commenting meehan has consistently hijacked threads. His avowed purpose is to silence me.

His immediate comment upon my return was

[Who the hell is the incomparable Jerry B to 'reprimand' anyone? Pompous dweeb! It just might be time to get on his case again. Is this the 4th or 5th time he has gone off in a huff* to the cheers of the rational, only to return to their long suffering sighs? *a smaller very down market marque of the hupmobile.]

Is this a classic liberal/progressive response to mock and try to intimidate into silence those with whom we disagree?

[ZORN REPLY -- "in Pennsylvania" are the key words...my knowledge of TRAP laws is based on numerous national news stories that have created an overall environment in which abortion providers and the politicians who protect a woman's right to choose are justifiably wary of the efforts of regulators...but since I haven't studied the exact lay of the land "in Pennsylvania" I should have inserted "most likely" in between "arena" and "came." Do you really doubt this? Do you dispute the idea that your side is trying really hard wherever it can to impose nitpicky regulations and requirements on abortion providers for no other reason than to try to harass them out of operation? And that this has created an oppositional relationship regarding regulation between the sides that has nothing to do with assuring medical safety? If you do, impeach yourself.]

Zorn chose the Gosnell/Pennsylvania regulatory debacle to make the above point including a color picture of Gosnell embedded in his column. For that he has egg on his face.

The truth is that Gosnell was operating out in the open. He was not hiding from the state regulators. THERE WAS NOTHING THAT THE PRO-LIFE PEOPLE DID TO DISCOURAGE “MEDICALLY SOUND REGULATORY PRACTICES” IN THIS CASE.

I supported my disagreement with Zorn with extensive quotes from the Grand Jury Report. See my posts of 8:48 AM and 11:03 AM.

I concluded from the Grand Jury Report that the motivation of the state regulators was to put no obstacles in the way of women seeking abortions. The Report also shows that this motivation ran contrary to the law. Thus it sure seems like a personal pro-choice motivation to me. Later I posted “But these Grand Jury findings do have a lot to do with pro-choice state regulators who willfully turned a blind eye to their legal duties so as not to hinder abortions.”

When pushed Zorn admitted that he was only GUESSING about the relevancy of the Gosnell/Pennsylvania debacle as support to his above thesis. Specifically Zorn stated:

[…I haven't read a whole lot about the political/regulatory environment in Pennsylvania that led to this place operating outside of the law for so long, but I'm guessing it's deeply entwined with the fears that abortion-rights advocates have that their foes are intent on regulating and inspecting them out of business...hence the allusion to TRAP laws, which I encourage you to read up on…]

Of course Gosnell is a monster. So was the "H" person of German history. But societies are filled with monsters -- they are usually kept in prisons and insane asylums.

With is vile is when these monsters do their thing out in the open and the authorities do nothing to stop them. The officials and regulators in Pennsylvania did nothing. The Grand Jury found that this willful turning a blind eye was contrary to their legal obligations. The Grand Jury found they were motivated by their desire to place no obstacles to abortions. That can only be labeled a pro-choice desire.

Thus the Gosnell/Pennsylvanian story was all about state officials and regulators violating their regulatory obligations mandated by the law and turning a willful blind eye because of their PRO-CHOICE ZEAL.

It simply had NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PRO-LIFE PEOPLE DISCOURAGING “MEDICALLY SOUND REGULATORY PRACTICES.”

Eric, -- although I am coming late to this discussion, a few points I'd like to offer --First, your column and comments claim that Gosnell is a result of "regulations and requirements on abortion providers for no other reason than to try to harass them out of operation" -- however, this directly contradicts what the Grand Jury on Gosnell stated. In fact, the Grand Jury report specifically noted that "the politics in question [that kept Gosnell from being investigated] were not anti-abortion, but pro. With the change of administration from Governor [Bob] Casey to Governor [Tom] Ridge, officials concluded that inspections would be 'putting a barrier up to women' seeking abortions. Better to leave clinics to do as they pleased, even though, as Gosnell proved, that meant both women and babies would pay."

Second -- many of Gosnell's patients were referred to him by other abortion providers. He didn't operate in the shadows. The Grand Jury reported noted that one clinic -- Atlantic Women's -- a member of the National Abortion Federation -- referred at least 6 women to Gosnell.

Third, Gosnell is NOT being prosecuted for performing illegal abortions. Seth Williams, the D.A. (who, incidentally, ran for office as a "pro-choice progressive") did not pursue charges on the 33 counts of illegal abortions -- because he knows well that those abortions are legally permitted under the Doe v. Bolton decision. Gosnell would prevail simply by arguing that Doe's health exception ( in the context of abortion, health is defined as "all factors -- phsycial, psychological, emotional, familial, or the woman's age, relevant to the well-being of the patient") would legally allow for every one of those abortions he performed. He's "only" being tried for the murders of the babies who were born alive, as well as one of the women who died in his clinic. As Vicki Sapporta of the National Abortion Federation told ABC News, Gosnell's problem was that he "wasn't ensuring fetal demise," i.e., he wasn't making sure those babies were dead before he pulled them out, not that he was doing the late-term abortions per se.

Finally, the Gosnell case is drawing attention to other abortion clinics where there are unsafe and unsanitary conditions -- for example, a Planned Parenthood clinic in Delaware was the subject of a recent tv news investigation (the local ABC affiliate -- and two nurses from the clihic went on camera to talk about how horrific the place was.) Then there's the death of Tonya Reeves at the PP clinic in Chicago, or the death of Jennifer Morbelli at LeRoy Carhart's clinic Maryland. Perhaps the attention -- or news of the lack thereof -- will lead to greater safety for women and a better understanding of America's abortion laws.

ZORN REPLY -- If it were about safety and medical necessity and so on, sure. But the push/pull that takes place when you want to make issues of sound medical pratice into a wedge to advance your position on abortion makes this difficult.

Here is what I find so vile about Zorn’s column – published both online and in the print edition of the Chicago Tribune – and his comments on this thread..

First – based only on GUESSWORK – Zorn uses the Gosnell/Pennsylvanian Regulatory Debacle to slander the pro-life people.

Second – because of Zorn’s animus to the pro-lifers he completely misses the real story of the Gosnell/Pennsylvanian Regulatory Debacle which is one of state officials and regulators violating their regulatory obligations mandated by the law and turning a willful blind eye because of their PRO-CHOICE ZEAL.

ZORN REPLY -- "in Pennsylvania" are the key words...my knowledge of TRAP laws is based on numerous national news stories that have created an overall environment in which abortion providers and the politicians who protect a woman's right to choose are justifiably wary of the efforts of regulators...but since I haven't studied the exact lay of the land "in Pennsylvania" I should have inserted "most likely" in between "arena" and "came."
Do you really doubt this? Do you dispute the idea that your side is trying really hard wherever it can to impose nitpicky regulations and requirements on abortion providers for no other reason than to try to harass them out of operation? And that this has created an oppositional relationship regarding regulation between the sides that has nothing to do with assuring medical safety?
If you do, impeach yourself.

MCN Reply:

I don't think there's much more here to say. First, your column was sloppily written in which you let your emotion get the better of you and let's leave it at that.

I don't really care if my side is putting a lot of restrictions on your side because I think your side is killing human beings who have a right to life, no more than I would care if the certain states put burdens on slaveholding as a way of making their protests against the practice clear. Very simple.

Moreover, I think Roe was wrongly decided, did major damage to the Court's integrity, and that the states have a right to regulate abortion, ban it completely, or subsidize it freely, depending on their respective inclinations. If states that oppose Roe want to use workarounds like these so-called TRAP laws, by all means let them.

In terms of medical "safety", well, take a look at Pennsylvannia's failure to regulate and see what happens. And give some more thought to those stand-up abortion clinics that referred their patients to Gosnell.

Your bringing up abortion regulation in this context is nothing more than artful dodging of the real problem here, which is the lack of regulation and the willingness of abortionists to do business in these conditions.

The pro-life people are not at fault here, Eric. YOUR people are, the abortionist, the regulators, and the referring clinics. All three of them. We can have a more interesting give and take when you admit that. Your trying to dodge the point is gutless.

The faults are on your side, not mine. Regulators permitted abortion clinics that violated any semblance of medical safety to operate in the open. Nothing back alley about this monster. And you're complaining now about overregulation? Please.

Finally, that unborn child of the 12 year old girl is an innocent human being who harmed no one, different in no respect from any other unborn child. And you think the girl has a right to kill it.

ZORN REPLY -- What I think about the pregnant 12 year old isn't as important as the fact that some 80 percent of the public agrees with me on my view of her rights and her parents rights in that situation.
Nothing particularly emotional about this column for me -- fact is that to the extent your side succeeds in pushing abortion underground and into so called back alleys, the more Gosnellian horrors we're going to see. That is a calm observation.
The debate on this in the comment thread -- now closing in on 100 entries -- focusing on why there was not good oversight of Gosnell's clinics and what that means for the shape of the overall abortion debate, that's a side issue.
I admit that it's a guess, but I think it's a good guess, that if clinics and hospitals were able to perform all abortions that are legal in Pennsylvania free from the threat of politically inspired harassment in the regulatory process, you never would have had women seeking out a clinic like Gosnell's. They'd walk in the door and walk right back out.
But very few clinics will do those post 20-week abortions -- why do you think the woman who died was from Virginia? -- and that causes/allows the ones that do to operate in illegal ways.

[The faults are on your side, not mine. Regulators permitted abortion clinics that violated any semblance of medical safety to operate in the open. Nothing back alley about this monster. And you're complaining now about overregulation? Please.]

I totally agree.

But I disagree with your assertion:

[First, your column was sloppily written in which you let your emotion get the better of you and let's leave it at that.]

Rather the column was a masterful spin/snow job by a professional wordsmith. The red herrings and non sequiturs were masterfully and seamlessly done. I can partially forgive sloppiness but what Zorn did here was purposeful. He sought to deflect blame for the Gosnell/Pennsylvanian Regulatory Debacle from where it rightfully belongs and to heap on it those upon whom it does not. That I find vile.

@EZ: I never said the woman was from Virginia. I don't even know what woman you're talking about.

What is relevant to me is that the Court made a bad decision and that the people are unlawfully precluded from putting into place whatever aborion regime they wish.

It's also not that relevant to me what 80% of the people want or don't want. The public's beliefs as to what power women should or should have don't affect the fact that abortion on demand is an unspeakable evil.

@ MCN: I read Zorn's reply as that the women who died in Gosnell's clinic was from VA, not PA, and had to go far afield in order to find a clinic that would perform a late-term abortion. I don't think he was asking you why you thought she was from VA.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.